Email link

Respond to editor

Read comments (18)

Share link

Teen held on sexual charges

Wednesday, July 8, 2009
By NOREEN HYSLOP Managing Editor

A Bloomfield teenager sits in the Stoddard County Jail today, charged with the unclassified felony of statutory rape in the first degree and the Class B felony of child molestation in the first degree.

Garrett S. Tidey, 17, was arrested Monday following an investigation by Bloomfield Police.

According to a probable cause statement authored by Assistant Bloomfield Police Chief Cheryl Malone, a female juvenile subject and her parents appeared at the Bloomfield Police station on Wednesday, July 1. It was at that meeting that Malone was informed by the juvenile's parents that their 13-year-old had experienced a sexual encounter with 17-year-old Tidey.

The juvenile told police that on June 20 she had been at a Bloomfield residence with two other juvenile friends. Tidey was apparently another guest in the household, which is rented by a 21-year old man.

Statements from all three juvenile subjects concur that Tidey did engage in intercourse with the reporting juvenile and that it was consensual.

Tidey, who reported to Bloomfield police the following day on July 2, admitted to Malone that the sexual act did indeed occur. He also told police that he took the juvenile girl home following the incident and that the girl at that time said to him, "You know I am 13, right?" to which he responded, "Well, there's nothing I can do about it now."

Under Missouri law, the charge of statutory rape in the first degree for having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 14, is punishable by law upon conviction with a term of years not less than five. The Class B felony charge of child molestation in the first degree carries a sentence of not less than five nor more than 15 years in prison.

Tidey is held on a $12,500 bond and as of press time, remains in custody.

Comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on dailystatesman.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

That is the problem with this world now days these young girls having sex then pressing charges I know the boy was wrong also but do you know if the girl told him how old she was before hand and does she look her age for now days most 13 and 14 yr olds look to be 18 to 19 I dont know if it is what is in the food or milk but girls are developing much younger than they where when i was that young. I dont feel the boy should suffer for something she also wanted and was she a virgin or had she had sex before. These are ? I would ask if I was his lawyer for it is time that the girl also be punished also for it she knew better too.

-- Posted by prjohnson2000 on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 6:56 PM

50 years ago they would have gotten married.Times have changed Im not saying this incident was right but He will be judged for the rest of his life for this as a sex offender. My mom was 15 my dad was 19 or 20 when they were married 49 years ago. im 49 now hmmm. I wonder.....NO I dont wanna know.

-- Posted by XDEXTERRESI on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 10:05 PM

I don't think cases like this are right. I understand that there are laws. But it's a scary place for a young man nowdays. You've got grown-up looking girls going to older men's houses (unattended of course, which I think the parents should be charged something for), and then they sleep w/ them, tell them their age AFTER intercourse, and turn around and get them for rape so it'll keep them out of trouble w/ the inattentive parents. The parents should be charged w/ child endangerment, the girl should be charged w/ something, and the boy should be set free.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 11:14 PM

Agreed Flipper. The parents should be held accountable as well as the home owner. The kids should not get off Scott-free, a mix of sex education classes and community service. How can you seriously bust this kid and let everyone else not share in the blame? Just another fine example of a thoughtful law that was not thought out!

-- Posted by layne staley on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 8:02 AM

17 and 13....and only HE is charged. Why did she even report it to her parents if she wanted to "play"? I will tell you what happens, the "victim" starts feeling guilty or worries they may be pregnant and who do they have to blame?...Yep...the GUY. It was consensual and yes..there are 13 year olds who have enough "life experiences", thanks to BAD PARENTS, that they can choose to have sex, or not. I bet that is one dysfunctional household. And this young MAN will pay. If it was a 17 year old girl and a 13 year old boy there would be NO story.

-- Posted by Bearcat72 on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 1:34 PM

Ok the girls parents pressed charges, the girl is 13 and therefore accourding to the state of missouri she does not yet have the right to make the decision whether or not to have sex. Basically any young man hanging around young girls needs to start asking for id's.

-- Posted by michaelc76 on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 2:58 PM

I believe the girl should also be charged since the boy wasn't of age either. Charge the parents with child endangerment as it is apparant that they didn't know where their daughter was at the time.

-- Posted by denene on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 4:24 PM

I wonder what kind of music they were listening too? I am picturing some POWER Ballads, but it could have been some contemporary country.

-- Posted by shannonhoon on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 7:43 PM

Mmm...are you saying they'd have been SAFE if they'd have been listening to heavy metal???

-- Posted by goat lady on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 7:07 AM

these young girls look to these older boys becasue they give them comfort anf make them feel good and somtimes they dont get that at home and when they do get it then they yell rape,, well you know they guys arent the only ones who should be charged ,,what if they girls are all over them and evrything else what are they supposed to do say im sorry go play somewhere else,,(yeah right)the parents need to pay more attention to what there kids are doing nowdays and stuff like this wouldnt happen so much look at how many of these cases ahve happened in stoddard county just this year.

-- Posted by mamabera4 on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 8:09 AM

ok well Garrett is my best friend and I really don't think he should be in trouble for this becuase the girl did not tell him how old she was til afterwards and she was the one who wanted it in the first place.I would know I was there. She should be charged with something because she did not tell him. Teens lie to their parents so you cant really charge them with anything. He should've found out about her before anything but things happen. If your going to charge one get the other with something, because it is not just his fault. This girl and what happened is about to change his life forever and thats not right. Remember it takes two to tango.

-- Posted by peanut101 on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 1:57 PM

I'm just curious. Afterwards the girl said "You know I am 13, right". Did she already know about the Missouri law that it's statutory for anyone to have sex with someone under fourteen before it happened? Did they both know? So if she was 14 and him 17 everything would be OK and nobody could do anything because they're both minors? I'm not pointing fingers, accusing or blaming, just wondering.

-- Posted by tonopahrick on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 11:24 PM

Oh Brother! What a waste of tax payers money. And where did the $12500 bond come from? That is very low for a class B felony.

It seems to me the PA doesn't set a lot of store on this one either.

-- Posted by johnlaw484c on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, at 5:07 PM

Bearcat 72,I ditto everything you said,couldn't have said it better myself!!

-- Posted by MOGAL on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, at 10:28 PM

I am sorry but this is just two teenage kids having some innocent fun. He didn't rape her! It was consentual and he is a minor as well. This kid will be marked for the rest of his life over this. Laws need to change and change soon. What is this world coming to??

-- Posted by sweet on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, at 8:12 AM

You ladies are pretty rough on a 13 year old girl.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 12:33 AM

I.B. what about the 17 yr. old boy?

-- Posted by sweet on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 12:29 PM

Well obviously he is not a little boy.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, at 12:05 AM